"Christian" Fundamentalism in West

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 02 Aug 2011 04:34

http://www.saisathyasai.com/tehmina-vis ... arora.html

Not that I give a hoot about .....

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 02 Aug 2011 04:55

Random thought for the day. Reverend Jim Jones:

In 1952, Jones became a student pastor in Sommerset Southside Methodist Church in Indianapolis, but left that church because it barred him from integrating African Americans into his congregation.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 02 Aug 2011 05:57

So many evangelists hide under the guise of pseudo liberals. This journo who spends all his time in India "drain inspecting" and showing how evangelical charities are helping is one of them

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opini ... .html?_r=1

Evangelicals Without Blowhards
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: July 30, 2011

IN these polarized times, few words conjure as much distaste in liberal circles as “evangelical Christian.”
Damon Winter/The New York Times

That’s partly because evangelicals came to be associated over the last 25 years with blowhard scolds. When the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson discussed on television whether the 9/11 attacks were God’s punishment on feminists, gays and secularists, God should have sued them for defamation.

Earlier, Mr. Falwell opined that AIDS was “God’s judgment on promiscuity.” That kind of religious smugness allowed the AIDS virus to spread and constituted a greater immorality than anything that occurred in gay bathhouses.

Partly because of such self-righteousness, the entire evangelical movement often has been pilloried among progressives as reactionary, myopic, anti-intellectual and, if anything, immoral.

Yet that casual dismissal is profoundly unfair of the movement as a whole. It reflects a kind of reverse intolerance, sometimes a reverse bigotry, directed at tens of millions of people who have actually become increasingly engaged in issues of global poverty and justice.

This compassionate strain of evangelicalism was powerfully shaped by the Rev. John Stott, a gentle British scholar who had far more impact on Christianity than media stars like Mr. Robertson or Mr. Falwell. Mr. Stott, who died a few days ago at the age of 90, was named one of the globe’s 100 most influential people by Time, and in stature he was sometimes described as the equivalent of the pope among the world’s evangelicals.

Mr. Stott didn’t preach fire and brimstone on a Christian television network. He was a humble scholar whose 50-odd books counseled Christians to emulate the life of Jesus — especially his concern for the poor and oppressed — and confront social ills like racial oppression and environmental pollution.

“Good Samaritans will always be needed to succor those who are assaulted and robbed; yet it would be even better to rid the Jerusalem-Jericho road of brigands,” Mr. Stott wrote in his book “The Cross of Christ.” “Just so Christian philanthropy in terms of relief and aid is necessary, but long-term development is better, and we cannot evade our political responsibility to share in changing the structures that inhibit development. Christians cannot regard with equanimity the injustices that spoil God’s world and demean his creatures.”

Mr. Stott then gave examples of the injustices that Christians should confront: “the traumas of poverty and unemployment,” “the oppression of women,” and in education “the denial of equal opportunity for all.”

For many evangelicals who winced whenever a televangelist made the headlines, Mr. Stott was an intellectual guru and an inspiration. Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, who has worked heroically to combat everything from genocide to climate change, told me: “Against the quackery and anti-intellectualism of our movement, Stott made it possible to say you are ‘evangelical’ and not be apologetic.”

The Rev. Jim Wallis, head of a Christian organization called Sojourners that focuses on social justice, added: “John Stott was the very first important evangelical leader to support our work at Sojourners.”

Mr. Stott, who was a brilliant student at Cambridge, also underscored that faith and intellect needn’t be at odds.

Centuries ago, serious religious study was extraordinarily demanding and rigorous; in contrast, anyone could declare himself a scientist and go in the business of, say, alchemy. These days, it’s the reverse. A Ph.D. in chemistry is a rigorous degree, while a preacher can explain the Bible on television without mastering Hebrew or Greek — or even showing interest in the nuances of the original texts.

Those self-appointed evangelical leaders come across as hypocrites, monetizing Jesus rather than emulating him. Some seem homophobic, and many who claim to be “pro-life” seem little concerned with human life post-uterus. Those are the preachers who won headlines and disdain.

But in reporting on poverty, disease and oppression, I’ve seen so many others. Evangelicals are disproportionately likely to donate 10 percent of their incomes to charities, mostly church-related. More important, go to the front lines, at home or abroad, in the battles against hunger, malaria, prison rape, obstetric fistula, human trafficking or genocide, and some of the bravest people you meet are evangelical Christians (or conservative Catholics, similar in many ways) who truly live their faith.

I’m not particularly religious myself, but I stand in awe of those I’ve seen risking their lives in this way — and it sickens me to see that faith mocked at New York cocktail parties.

Why does all this matter?

Because religious people and secular people alike do fantastic work on humanitarian issues — but they often don’t work together because of mutual suspicions. If we could bridge this “God gulf,” we would make far more progress on the world’s ills.

And that would be, well, a godsend.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 02 Aug 2011 07:15

I thought Nicholas Kristof was Jewish? He is a conservative Jew. I have been fascinated, recently, with Jews playing their part in American Christian conservatism. I know this will open a multitude of CT's about the "evil Jews," but I'm wondering if this is b/c of tactical necessity or genuine intellectual bonhomie with Evangelicals???

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 Aug 2011 07:39

Theo_Fidel wrote: WRT the mission activity, it was always present but at funding and focus was relatively limited. Esp. local funding for mission pastors was relatively limited. Now the funding is out of this world.

This is a very serious issue. It is known that many of the Church organizations are collaborating with foreign governments and intelligence agencies. The funds being pumped in from abroad amount to tens of thousands of crores. Many, many times more than anything that the much reviled "Hindu nationalists" have at their disposal.

I think the solution is to educate young Christians about the nature of these Church activities. Disseminate the views of Gandhi and Ambedkar as regards conversions and missionaries. Rajiv Malhotra's book should be widely publicized and distributed.

It will become necessary to go beyond Malhotra's book. One crucial aspect, which Malhotra's book does not cover, is the way in which traditional Christianity is being undermined in the West by the same interests that are promoting evangelization in India. It is all about control by elites. The ultimate destination of all Christian denominations is something resembling the "Christian Zionism" promoted by Hagee et al (albeit adjusted to cater to the local interests of western elites in third world countries). Most of the mainstream Churches are well on their way. Once this fact is understood, the aggressive young Christians that you talk about will be forced to confront the fact that their assigned role in this sinister charade is that of a useful idiot.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 02 Aug 2011 07:42

devesh wrote:I thought Nicholas Kristof was Jewish? He is a conservative Jew. I have been fascinated, recently, with Jews playing their part in American Christian conservatism. I know this will open a multitude of CT's about the "evil Jews," but I'm wondering if this is b/c of tactical necessity or genuine intellectual bonhomie with Evangelicals???

You are quite right.. the traditional antisemites (the evangelicals) have realized that they have bigger enemies... Muslims of the middleast and more importantly have realized that since they have been so unsuccessful in trying to convert the Jews into christians by violence and mockery feel they can still achieve this goal by being "sweet" to them. Mind you. These buggers have not given their deep desire to convert the Jews to Christians. Only then....only after they convert the Jews to Christians, would their Messiah come back on a white horse and take them all to heaven while smiting the non Christians to hell! This event is the most desirable event in the evangelicals life. The miserable pathetic life of the evangelicals. They are closely allied with "Jews for Jesus". But for some of the Jews, its a tactical benefit to be allied with the evangelicals to fight their immediate problem in Israel.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 Aug 2011 08:10

sanjaykumar wrote:http://www.saisathyasai.com/tehmina-vis ... arora.html

Not that I give a hoot about .....

Wow. Amazing. An excellent piece of investigative work. Everybody should read this in detail. This guy Vishal Arora is a real snake in the grass. Need to keep a watch on this guy. Somebody should add him to the media relationships graph that has been posted in the Psy-ops and media watch thread.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 02 Aug 2011 08:14

American Jewish ideology is mostly Christian now.

Christian money is mostly not from foreign political organizations. Most of the political money is from the Catholic church but the Catholic Church does not look at India as a priority mission area (mostly because India was poor). This might change.

Conversion is looked at as worthy of sacrifice now. In their mind they are looking for the poorest of the poor. What for Hindu community is most vulnerable population is for them the most disadvantaged and in need of help. Many of these youth pastors are Tribals or recently Ex-Tribals themselves. Telling them they are 'idiots' while they think they are trying to help their wretched compatriots is not going to be easy. Hindu community should think how it approaches Tribals/deeply disadvantaged who are tenuously classified as Hindu/Animist.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 Aug 2011 08:18

Theo_Fidel wrote:American Jewish ideology is mostly Christian now.

Rather, Christianity has mostly been brought in line with "Masonic" interests.

Hindu community should think how it approaches Tribals/deeply disadvantaged who are tenuously classified as Hindu/Animist.

That is true. The bane is corruption, which is keeping people poor and disadvantaged, and providing a fertile field of action for unscrupulous evangelical interests. That is why some (but not all) minority groups are opposed to the anti-corruption movement of Hazare & Ramdev.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 02 Aug 2011 08:40

devesh wrote:I thought Nicholas Kristof was Jewish? He is a conservative Jew. I have been fascinated, recently, with Jews playing their part in American Christian conservatism. I know this will open a multitude of CT's about the "evil Jews," but I'm wondering if this is b/c of tactical necessity or genuine intellectual bonhomie with Evangelicals???

I think Nick is catholic

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 02 Aug 2011 09:06

brihaspati wrote:Opposition to EJ and Islamist political ambitions as they have been protected and nurtured and enhanced under Constitutional sanction from Nehruvian discrimination on religious reform to Shah Bano and Ayodhya and Tasleema - could come from a very non-religious position too.

Bji, excellent set of posts.... Opposition to EJ/Islamist ambitions comes from several quarters - including from (a) religions that have faced the brunt of the activity, (b) from atheists / agnostics as well as (c) from liberals within their own religions.

The EJs are ultimately as much a threat to the Western states themselves as to other religions.....The only reason Christianity did not become a copy of Islam is because of the renaissance and the liberals within Christianity who threw off the overpowering cloak of the church. If the EJs had retained control, Christianity and Islam would probably not have been distinguishable.

Pseudo-liberals in India unfortunately ally with conservatives in both Islam and Christianity - which is very stupid of the Indian liberals and very smart of the Islamic/ Christian conservatives. Christian liberals largely restrict themselves to domestic US / Western issues - they need to be actively enlisted in the global struggle against EJs.

PS- I would like to see more such posts from you that argue from a POV of universal religious regulation that makes sense, vs a purely Hindu POV. IMO, the solution that satisfies the former also satisfies the latter.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 Aug 2011 10:09

Arjun wrote: The EJs are ultimately as much a threat to the Western states themselves as to other religions.....The only reason Christianity did not become a copy of Islam is because of the renaissance and the liberals within Christianity who threw off the overpowering cloak of the church. If the EJs had retained control, Christianity and Islam would probably not have been distinguishable.

Pseudo-liberals in India unfortunately ally with conservatives in both Islam and Christianity - which is very stupid of the Indian liberals and very smart of the Islamic/ Christian conservatives. Christian liberals largely restrict themselves to domestic US / Western issues - they need to be actively enlisted in the global struggle against EJs.

One needs to distinguish between the Renaissance and the Reformation. The Renaissance was a truly liberal movement that began in the 1200's (with thinkers such as Dante). The Reformation came later, and was a pseudo-liberal movement to split the Catholic Church, which admittedly had become very degenerate. The Reformation, which gave rise to the Protestant Churches, was supported by the anti-Catholic elites of the period. As far as Dharmics are concerned, the products of the Reformation (such as the Southern Baptists of the US) are often more virulent than the Catholics. However, at this point of time, the distinction is moot, since the Catholics too, have been tamed and brought into line by the elite interests that gave rise to the Reformation.

It should also be noted that the elites which use pseudo-liberalism to undermine traditional Christianity in the west, also promote hardline Evanjehadism in third world countries, in which they are supported by native Sepoy pseudo-liberals such as Manu Joseph, Arundhati Roy, Binayak Sen and Pankaj Mishra.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 02 Aug 2011 10:24

Pranav wrote:It should also be noted that the elites which use pseudo-liberalism to undermine traditional Christianity in the west...

Can you expand on this? There is a signficant liberal section in the West that is against EJism and 'conservative' Christian dogma. Why would you term them pseudo-liberals?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 Aug 2011 10:29

Arjun wrote:
Pranav wrote:It should also be noted that the elites which use pseudo-liberalism to undermine traditional Christianity in the west...
Can you expand on this? There is a signficant liberal section in the West that is against EJism and 'conservative' Christian dogma. Why would you term them pseudo-liberals?

I would not say that Evanjehadism or the Conservatism of the variety espoused by the Neocons or by Breivik represents traditional Christianity.

One can ask what is meant by "traditional Christianity". Possibly one would have to go back to the original intent of Jesus. However, throughout its history, organized Christianity has been used as a political tool.

For a perspective on the undermining of traditional Christianity in the west, one could look, for example, at E Michael Jones' "Culture Wars" magazine (http://www.culturewars.com/).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Aug 2011 12:42

Look,this thread is getting derailed into becoming a debate about Christianity,which is tangential.The topic is "Christian extremism/fundamentalism in the West",and we should be asking ourselves why it is happening these days with increasing intolerance in so-called Christian countries and whether those countries are by their very acts of engaging in illegal wars is encouraging individual acts of terror.What is also vaild for debate are those religious entities/individuals in the west who "propagate a gospel of hate",totally the opposite of Christian teaching.We can leave the Indo-centric discussions secondary please,as they cloud the issue.

For the record,there are so many "Christian" factions,worth listing some of them,to understand the roots of such extremism in the west.You have the Catholic Church ruled by the Vatican,The Anglican Communion-made up of a motley group of Protestant chuches worldwide,The Orthodox chuirches,Greek and Russian and Syrian Christain (Indian),plus other mainstream Protestant denominations outside the Anglican church,as well as the "loose cannons" of the Evangelicals/Televangelicals.Now the Vatican (fear of losing influence) and Anglican,or more strictly COE/Methodists in particular if I remember correctly (jealous,as fewer people are going to the established church),frown upon Freemasonry which they view as "competitive".A rat race where religion competes with others to perpetuate itself for the future.Within the church there are huge wars going on between established churches and the Evangelical movements,who are poaching "souls" within the Christian community itself.It's all about the money,subscriptions,donations,etc.,to run the institutions!

The American churches which had as their founder figures a host of Masons,like Washington,etc.,seem to have a different more liberal approach.From the available open info about Masonry in the media etc.,the English try and dominate the old colonial countries,the Europeans go their different way anti-English,and the Americans have their own style-where "Black" Masonry is only now gradually being accepted by the mainstream bodies.Racism in American Masonry-something taboo according to Masons,is widespread in the US.There is supposedly little mingling between "Black" and "White" Masons.

What has happened in the US in the last few decades has been the huge influence of the Televangelists,some of whom appear to have blinkered vision as far as the rest of the world is concerned.I heard one famous figure on telly,who a few years ago flew into B'Lore in his private jet with a presidential like entourage,had a meeting in an airstrip,describe traditional "drumming" as Satanic! Imagine what if we in India called Rock Music the same? After all,so many rock stars commit suicide at the age of 27 Joplin,Hendrix,,like Amy W did just afew days ago in Blighty! It is these figures/entities who have launched the campaigns of US leaders like Dubya Bush and now there's even a billionaire "Mad Hatter" in the Republican "Tea Party" too!

We need to identify these entities/figures and expose them and their waroped ideologies so that they do not take root in our nation as well.As far as our country is concerned,
there is so much looting going on within the established churches like the CSI,CNI,etc.,who hold vast properties all over the country ,worth thousands of crores-being quietly "sold off by corrupt bishops and their cassocked cronies) that religious figures have no time for the "fundamentals " of their religion,as they're having so much fun pilfering the church silver!
.In the CSI alone,numerous bishops including the Moderator,or head of the clergy is himself a "scandalous" figure for allegedly looting the Karnataka diocese in land scams to the tune of crores and are fighting cases against them in the courts.Justice Saldanha was aked to make a report in one instance of looting by a CSI Bishop.In Kerala,the cash for medical seats has also rocked the church.The lay people who make up the congregation of these churches,are livid with anger as theys ee the cassocked crooks-and in many an instance their families too,just like Yeddy,Reddy,Kani,Kalmadi and co., running rampant with church assets.These scum of the church deserve to also be behind bars,but equally corrupt politicos have joined with them in "saving their souls (and backsides too)",because of the religious votebank,property and loot to be made.Don't forget that many reputed Christian educational institutions, have been captured by corrupt churchmen through gaining control of their trusts and the sale of seats and dispensation of them as favours makes them very rich and powerful.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 02 Aug 2011 14:50

I wonder why "Land Reforms Acts" did not cover these vast land parcels and doles they received during the colonial rule.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 02 Aug 2011 19:03

As long as fundamentalism does not spawn violent angelojehadis like Breivik, there is no harm in being a fundamentalist.One has the right to practice, but not to proselytise.One might attract others to their way of life, but leave it unto others to choose to follow their path, or to go along their own chosen path.Some beautiful books were written in 70s on this sort of thing.Richard Bach's book "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" was one such book. It was a beautifully illustrated book, wish I had a copy to show.I do have a picture I googled.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 02 Aug 2011 20:37

ideologies which are fundamentalist can still be bad, without being "overtly" violent. as for evangelicals, their power comes from being a "determined minority." if they expand too much, they'll go the way of the RCC. decadent practices and dissident ideas will start emerging which will destroy the movement. if they want to continue to be politically influential globally, Evangelical movement in US has to confine itself to WASP community and focus intense "feeling" within the community. if they project outwards, any more than they already have, they set themselves up for a "reformation."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Aug 2011 21:15

Philip, The fundamentalism is about how to exert control over the masses.

Its plain and simple Emperor speak. Its cloaked in religion to give it an aura of divine providence.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 02 Aug 2011 21:54

Only a vested interests group uses religion for politics, and such groups keep mushrooming,because each Tom Dick and Harry wants to prove how great his religion is.I used to read the KKK stories emanating from the USA, blood chilling stuff, I really wondered what good they did for Christianity by using violence. They just created a gulf that is ever widening.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 02 Aug 2011 22:04

sanjeevpunj wrote

As long as fundamentalism does not spawn violent angelojehadis like Breivik, there is no harm in being a fundamentalist.One has the right to practice, but not to proselytise.One might attract others to their way of life, but leave it unto others to choose to follow their path, or to go along their own chosen path.

I agree with this completely. My earlier definitions also are the same. This is applicable to all religions. Everyone has a right to believe in their faith. Everyone has right to practice what they believe in their religion. Everyone has rights to go back to their fundamentals of their faith and be strict about it in their practice. Everyone has also right to proclaim to their own followers and their own youth. But the other (non follower) should not be seen as an evil and so to be eliminated. They should also not use improper means to persuade others to come into their faith (proselytising) nor force others to become one. One should also have freedom to choose what one may want to or even mix elements from different faiths. Also to some extent very vigorous preaching and overclaims of their faith and critical about other's faith and religions should also be questions. If some fundamentals have very exclusive elements (that is a nature to eliminate all other faiths) then the fundamentals should be reinterpreted in a way such exclusive calls should not lead to breaking human relationship with other faiths and other faiths should not be ridiculed or seen as less than theirs.

Every religions move from particularism to universalism and then swing back from universalism to particularisms. In this movement their universal relevance and claims of particular revelation and truth have often been preached with enthusiastic followers as the only truth around the world. This is particularly true with Abrahamic traditions. They have not understood the limitations of human narration - language, metaphors and stories. By trying to impose on others through preaching their own version of revelation and by force they had tended to play 'god' and thus worked against the same concept which they were supposed to preach.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 02 Aug 2011 22:10

What is also vaild for debate are those religious entities/individuals in the west who "propagate a gospel of hate",totally the opposite of Christian teaching.We can leave the Indo-centric discussions secondary please,as they cloud the issue.

Roland Weisselberg

Miloslav Vlk

The Breiviks do not operate in a vacuum.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 02 Aug 2011 22:48

Philip, you may be partially right in your notes about the churches in India. It deviates from the topic and focus. But your languages against the established Churches in India sounds like you work as an intelligence of the EJs. Such criticism about the established churches can be found in the preaching text of pentecostals and so on. Because though corruption is predominant in many of these churches, these churches are not bothered about converting nonChristians into Christianity. The government of India also did not support their liberal version of theological education rather withdrew their university status to Serampore University which is a liberal arts college where Hinduism and Islam are taught Government of India spends a lot of money for minorities but nearly 90% is spent on Muslims and their institutions even what is available to Christians go mainly to non-traditional churches (such as pentecostals and evangelicals). Even if you looked at the minority commission reps from Christians they are often selected from non-traditional churches. So in many ways the traditional Christianity and established churches(Syrians, Catholics, CSI, CNI) do not get any favour from the govt.

Nevertheless the churches should also be brought under Lokpal kind of system. Their services through educational and social service institiions are enormous but corruption is real. I myself wrote an article against churches corruption in people's reporter (2005) for which I was publicly criticised by the churches!

Because you were specific about the churches in India I had to write these things.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Aug 2011 22:50

We are talking about foriegn govt money and influence inside India.
All of these foreign ideologies are susceptible for interference from US and other countries. Indian interest has to be protected.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 02 Aug 2011 23:29

I like this matrix mapping of the development of aesthetic factors in psycho-social choices in various intersecting human fields, including religion and politics. They are calibrated against an ideal "balance" and map various modes of imbalance and corruption. Useful reference.

Sourced from Order Of Time, synopsis.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2011 00:21

I will try to summarize the problems I see in the way we are talking about this :

(1) the topic is "Christian fundamentalism" in the "west". But discussing this necessitates discussing the history of Christianity. Because Christianity like many other religions [but unlike Vedic/Upanishadic] rose at a time when state formation already has established itself as the prime centre of political life of a society - these religions can never really be studied separately from the corresponding contextual background of state-formation and transformation processes.

(2) This creates two problems : first we have to discuss theology, because the theological discourse cannot be understood without knowing the underlying political contests. Second, most of the theological/polemical battles that we think are "spiritual" onlee are in reality a cover for factional and personal contests between theopoliticians.

(3) because we try to suppress and disjunct the political foundations and intertwining within the theology - we fail to understand that "fundamentalism" was a necessary aspect of this theology almost from the beginning, and at various levels. This level includes the "philosophical" search for an imagined earlier supposed golden period of social justice, to the practical political organizational level of the constant fight with and for the "state".

(4) the most important problem is that, we will fail to catch the roots and development of fundamentalism in Christianity - without tracing this political foundation and the early alliance with imperialism and the intertwined common development over subsequent historical periods between the "philosophy" and "imperialism", and accumulation of capital as well as global financial/trade flows.

This makes it impossible to catch the full picture if we delete India from the picture - because India, even in the early days of Christianity, was an important nodal part of the east-west flow.

Targeted global centres of "wealth" generation had their impact on all "organized" religions. Because of this melding with financial flows/capital interests - organized religions always, always ally with "imperialism". It is a short step from there to develop a melded superstructure where both imperialism and theology continuously adapt, and modify each other into a single imperio-theological structure. By their very nature therefore, such structures work only for the interests of the "centre" - irrespective of and if necessary - against- the interests of subcomponents and regions.

We cannot deal with it unless we therefore, in this case, expose the actual political history of development of Christianity and its theology.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 03 Aug 2011 00:26

Bji,

I am trying to understand the gist of what you said.
Can you be more detailed with specific incidents/ the whole theory behind it. If you think that it is OT/ politically incorrect, can you provide me with some books.

You are providing a unified global outlook to look at the various incidents at the local levels. In your above statement, you have beautifully tied up what you said about Christianity as well as the history of buddhism as a trade guild in disguise in India and its romance with islam. Would you be able to clarify.

Thanks

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2011 00:48

Virupaksha wrote:Bji,

I am trying to understand the gist of what you said.
Can you be more detailed with specific incidents/ the whole theory behind it. If you think that it is OT/ politically incorrect, can you provide me with some books.

You are providing a unified global outlook to look at the various incidents at the local levels. In your above statement, you have beautifully tied up what you said about Christianity as well as the history of buddhism as a trade guild in disguise in India and its romance with islam. Would you be able to clarify.

Thanks

I will try to take the general approach to GDF or some appropriate thread. As you see, I think the current approach is problematic - so until my first question is sort of responded to by admins/gurus I am not sure I should respond here with details. Regards. B.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 03 Aug 2011 01:26

Brihaspati
some of your generalisations are wrong and flawed. Because the imperialistic forces did not support the expansion of the religionall the time. Rather in many contexts they were against religion because religious reformers were questioning such powercentres. particularly in the case of British Raj government, they did not allow missionaries to land into India even though they came from Britain. So generalising and relating a particular religion with imperialistic power was not always a history even in the case of Islam.

The real problem is with 'power' which is often linked with faith or religion. Those who try to persuade other to accept their own ideology or faith or concept are trying to influence others and thus bring others into their authority and thus excercise their power. Some claim this power is given to them by god. After modernity such attempts have focussed much on human centreness and so people tend to use religion as power to influence and control others. We need to be conscious of the diversity within every religion or denomination or faiths which are working within themselves to reform or question such power and authority. So generalising to any religion can become a mistake as it can create stereotype of one or the other. This also has similar methodology of EJs who wanted to create a negative image of the other by making themselves righteous.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 03 Aug 2011 02:04

Brihaspati ji makes valid observations, but I agree with joshvajohn's point above. Actually that was the reason I posted the table above.

Its possible to cast the concept of public policy in the light of traditions from India without falling into sectarian stereotypes. The sphere of public affairs and analysis encompasses a variety of human fields of thought and action. Aberrations and deformities in this space can philosophically be reduced to imbalances in one or more factors of appreciation along these intersecting fields, some of which Brihaspati ji points out.

But knowing the time ordered and time-binding properties of these factors and their development and alignment, it becomes simpler to consider and critique a situation holistically and fairly, and make helpful suggestions relevant to present time. IMHO, this is more sane than falling into an insistence on eliminationism. It seems more logical than subscribing to fixed ideologies, methods or attitudes in the political, social, economic or religious space. It also challenges specious defences of monetary or religious politics based on fixed political values. At the same time, it guards against relativization of all values as regards the public good.

The table above offers an indication of what the consequence may be of not finding the right definition of "good fortune", of missing the correct balance between fulness and vision. In such cases, one is a "materialist" with a conviction out of balance, or possessing a corrupt determination.

Materialism thus seen can be described as a lack of balance between the opulence of welfare on the one hand and the order of life and thought belonging to it on the other. One's thinking, out of balance in the fields of action and civil virtues, erodes to an “-ism”... a one-sided conviction which, at the cost of others, is bent upon a certain idea of happiness that only demonstrates the lack one suffers with the conviction at hand. All the rest flows as justified thought rather than true analytical thought. These “-isms” may, rising to political power, degrade into despotic regimes. For that practical reason the Indian traditions say it is useful to seek the philosophy and lifestyle of balance.

As an example, philosophy is in balance when it thrives on a love for knowingness. But building on the concept of power instead, it may degrade to the relativism of postmodernism with its propensity to denounce, from a desire to control, all absolutes blocking the way. Everything is relativized away.

Proceeding from this ratiocination, various ideologies and rationales can be observed to be morphologies derived from this ontology of factors and fields, substance and category.

To give another very over-simplified example relevant here: Different formalized religions are themselves "-isms", defending a singular syncretic equilibrium, each one peculiar to its own nature: knowledge with philosophy leads to Hinduism, power with science leads fulfilled to Buddhism, beauty with analysis leads in perfection to Taoism of which Confucianism is the rhetoric, renunciation with connectedness leads enlightened to gnosticism or spirituality in general, fame with religion leads to Universal Sufism and Bhakti movements, etc., and riches with politics perfectly combined leads to Christianity or Vaishnavism. One may also mention more sub"-isms" along varna lines: Zoroastrianism, Sikhism and Jainism, etc. Thus, this paradigm of analysis thus does not belong to any Indic or non-Indic religion as such, but rather they are a part of this by the very nature of things.

Public policy conducted on this basis of knowledge and social organization offers the hope of reconciliation, complementarity and stability among the various compartmented systems that exert their own force on the nation and the world. IMHO this is important to keep in mind especially in a country like ours. Pseudo-classifications of "Indic" and "non-Indic" based only on past international trends is itself imbalanced. JMT.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2011 02:28

joshvajohn wrote:Brihaspati
some of your generalisations are wrong and flawed. Because the imperialistic forces did not support the expansion of the religionall the time. Rather in many contexts they were against religion because religious reformers were questioning such powercentres. particularly in the case of British Raj government, they did not allow missionaries to land into India even though they came from Britain. So generalising and relating a particular religion with imperialistic power was not always a history even in the case of Islam.

The real problem is with 'power' which is often linked with faith or religion. Those who try to persuade other to accept their own ideology or faith or concept are trying to influence others and thus bring others into their authority and thus excercise their power. Some claim this power is given to them by god. After modernity such attempts have focussed much on human centreness and so people tend to use religion as power to influence and control others. We need to be conscious of the diversity within every religion or denomination or faiths which are working within themselves to reform or question such power and authority. So generalising to any religion can become a mistake as it can create stereotype of one or the other. This also has similar methodology of EJs who wanted to create a negative image of the other by making themselves righteous.

Actually you are not contradicting what I have said. What I actually wrote down was that - imperialism and theology "adapt and modify" each other - as a process. If they agreed on everything at all time points, the question of adapting [self as well as make the other] and modifying [again self and trying to modify the other] do not arise at all.

So at the micro-level, it may appear that they are out of sync - or antagonistic over a certain issue. But if you actually see the long-term outcome, who wins out - and who ultimately supports even from the opposing and ultimately defeated side - you can see that it is nothing but an "internal" factional fight over methods, not "objectives". The case you refer to about the Brit Raj will also bear this out.

You can see this phenomenon within any so-called ideologically motivated [or claiming to be founded on ideological grounds] modern political party. Different factions start intense polemical battles [even spilling into physical fights/eliminations/expulsions/reabsorptions] over methods - that sometimes also pretends differences over micro-objectives. But they all subscribe to the common overall objective.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 03 Aug 2011 03:06

^^^ Bji, agreed, but I think jvajohn was saying that this aberration of power politics can infect any formal ideology - and it can be corrected. So, while it is useful to point out some chronic tendencies, we can't generalize or stereotype to the point of eliminating what can be valid in any historical movement.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2011 03:14

Arjun ji,

I think I am speaking from the "Hindu" POV as I understand it to be. I can give my concept of the philosophy in two expressions:
(1) "Do not accept, do not reject"
(2) Charaibeti [Upanishad] -"move on",

(1) can be expanded as : no truth or knowledge is complete at any given time point, hence what is claimed to be true now is something that we hold on temporarily until the day greater accumulation of knowledge and understanding may force us to reject this present temporary truth. But we do not reject it either, until we can be sure that it is rejectable. Even then we may need to keep this knowledge which is apparently rejectable, since our rejection itself could be fallacious.

(2) "never be stationary in your quest for knowledge and understanding" and primary purpose of the Hindu life is to gain ever increasing knowledge and understanding.

There are other conclusions that follow from these two, and one cans show these two do not contradict any of the major "practional" implementations of the "Hinduism". But the reason I mention this here in the context of your suggestion is because my critique of the "organized" religions comes out of these two principles. Moreover it is this POV that allows me to see the essentially political, mercantile-accumulation, and power-seeking behaviour in all of the organized religions which make them - perhaps unknowingly for some of the adherents - a tool of self-deception, of imperialist ambitions, and a cover of deep psychopathic insecurities.

There are obvious clues in the characteristics of foundations of these movements that are in common, and those we ignore. From my POV, there cannot be any collective search for "truth" - the reason, is because there is no way to know whether falsities or errors in parts of the collective are not getting imposed on all. If individual quests all converged independently to the same truth - then that qualifies to be a "truth". This is the modern "scientific" method where claims must be falsifiable and conclusions are drawn only if a large number of independent confirmations accumulate. I think this is why the "Hindu" POV evolved towards individual intense and independent "search".

But whenever we see the intense urge for a "collectivization" of the search, it shows a lack of confidence in the truth one has arrived at, so that a campaign and social mobilization is needed to reinforce self-belief in one's individual truth. [This is also the conclusion of Eric Hoffer about the urge to proselytize and win converts]. The only other root cause for such collectivization urges comes from hidden or underlying political and economic motives or personal power needs that requires recruitment of an appropriate constituency.

Each of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam in their foundations shows this urge to organize - which could be one or both of the "lack of confidence" and the political mobilization. Organization with confidence in "belief" implies a political vision that sees strength in numbers, and also fears or sees obstacles in pre-existing organized structures. Hence, we see them arise only in the face of already organized state-structures. Mobilization of the "mass" also means the "ideological truth" cannot be a very radical departure from pre-existing ideological memes [otherwise communication difficulties and resistance]. This needs the tricky balance of claiming that the "new truth" is essentially a going back to the imagined golden "original truth" from which the surrounding ideology has "deviated" or has "falsities".

The beginnings of organization will immediately attract financial and trade networks interests, because trade interests always hedges its interests when it sees potential factional or group based conflicts within or against existing structures. At this stage, factions of elite - who feel marginalized within given arrangements [or has ambitions to "conquer" all other elite] will see potential.

All three therefore attracted initially the "marginals", both the "high and the low" but not the middle. All three reuse pre-existing memes [which therefore must have been too widespread to be completely rejected] but claim a purification of methods, all try to organize the following into structured communities under well-defined leadership structures. Each is penetrated early by mercantile/financial interests/trading networks, and soon find themselves in close proximity to imperialist ambitions - both contesting but also finding each other as useful in their respective objectives. These objectives soon become one but of course with different aspects of the same objective being respective obsessions.

Incidentally, all three gave rise to "fundamentalism" because the individual search has been negated from foundations, and collectivization of search implies continuous deviations because the corrective method of independent individual verifications has been edited out. Thus there is the periodical need to try and reset the "search", and try to reinvent the fundamental from which the initial "truth"giver" [not-seeker] proposed that the initial "truth" was "given".

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2011 03:24

Carl wrote:^^^ Bji, agreed, but I think jvajohn was saying that this aberration of power politics can infect any formal ideology - and it can be corrected. So, while it is useful to point out some chronic tendencies, we can't generalize or stereotype to the point of eliminating what can be valid in any historical movement.

Carl ji,
as you can see from my previous post - I see the problem in the very "method" itself. I therefore feel that the "chronic" tendencies are inseparable from the structure.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2011 03:33

Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer : Psychology of mass movements" p. 102-103, 1951 edition.

Whence comes the impulse to proselytize?

Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth: "Religions of great intensity often confine themselves to contemning, destroying, or at best pitying what is not themselves." [1] . Nor is the impulse to proselytize an expression of an overabundance of power which as Bacon has it "is like a great flood, that will be sure to overflow. " [2]. The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgiving, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have. It is a search for a final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. The creed whose legitimacy is most easily challenged is likely to develop the strongest proselytizing impulse. It is doubtful whether a movement which does not profess some preposterous and patently irrational dogma can be possessed of that zealous drive which "must either win men or destroy the world." It is also plausible that those movements with the greatest inner contradiction between profession and practice - that is to say with a strong feeling of guilt - are likely to be the most fervent in imposing their faith on others. The more unworkable communism proves in Russia, and the more its leaders are compelled to compromise and adulterate the original creed, the more brazen and arrogant will be their attack on a non - believing world. The slaveholders of the South became the more aggressive in spreading their way of life the more it became patent that their position was untenable in a modern world. If free enterprise becomes a proselytizing holy cause, it will be a sign that its workability and advantages have ceased to be self - evident.

The passion for proselytizing and the passion for world dominion are both perhaps symptoms of some serious deficiency at the center. It is probably as true of a band of apostles or conquistadors as it is of a band of fugitives setting out for a distant land that they escape from on untenable situation at home. And how often indeed do the three meet, mingle and exchange their parts.

Ref:
[1]: Jacob Burckhardt, "Force and freedom" ny: pantheon books, 1943 p. 129
[2]: Francis Bacon, "Of Vicissitude of Things," Bacon's Essays, Everyman's Library edition (New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, 1932), p. 171.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 Aug 2011 06:58

Brothers' Keepers: American evangelicals were always big believers in democracy -- until it reached the Arab world.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 03 Aug 2011 07:08

Philip, here are some sources that discuss the crisis inside Christianity in the west (and by extension inside Indian Christianity):

(1) The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay - http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/pinay/

(2) The Broken Cross by Piers Compton - http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/brokencross/

(3) Here is a discussion of the historical background of Protestantism by Dr E Michael Jones - http://tinyurl.com/2b6bbb

(4) Here is a source that argues that a coup in the Catholic Church occurred on 26th Oct 1958 - http://www.realnews247.com/giuffre_on_oct_26_1958.htm

Standard caveats apply, one has to evaluate a variety of independent sources and create a coherent model for oneself.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 03 Aug 2011 10:49

brihaspati wrote: Carl ji,
as you can see from my previous post - I see the problem in the very "method" itself. I therefore feel that the "chronic" tendencies are inseparable from the structure.

Brihaspati ji, I beg to differ. At one level, socially preaching a message or idea is actually the appropriate method of churning and internalizing what one is hearing and learning. Otherwise the Bhagavad Gita would not have touched on the importance of vaada (over vitanda and jalpa) as far as preaching and argument are concerned). Genuine preaching to convert another's opinion forms a part of the process and continuum of learning and presenting knowledge and love. After all, aren't you yourself arguing on this forum?

shravaNam keertanam viShNoh
smaraNam paada-sevanam
archanam vandanam daasyam
saakhyam aatma-nivedanam
iti punsaarpita viShNau
bhaktish chen nava-lakShaNa

"Listening attentively about Vishnu and relating it with praise,
Remembrance of this, and serving His lotus feet,
Worshipping His deity, prayer, servitude,
Friendship with Him, surrendering everything unto Him
These are the 9 processes of devotion offered to Vishnu."

Vedanta Sutras are clear that the boldness to hold forth and communicate knowledge at any level is based on qualification (adhikaar). It so happens that in the social and political arrangement of any religious or ideological school or community, most of the active preaching is actually undertaken by neophytes (so-called "kanishta adhikaari"). These are the enthusiastic "true believers" your other post mentions. But this scheme can actually work just fine as long as the neophytes are under the wise guidance of mature hierophants ("madhyam adhikaari") and the adept of the school ("uttam adhikaari").

Only when the "true believer" neophytes are naively lead on and used by corrupt, ambitious or hypocritical middle management and sociopathic elite "adepts" is there a problem. No doubt this is observed in a range of scenarios, but this still cannot be generalized to the exclusion of genuine cases of spiritual grace and mercy overflooding human populations. Its a matter of qualification.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Aug 2011 11:29

Dear Josh,rest assured,I am NO agent for any EJ group or individual! I go to a small very old respectable mainstream church,once Anglican.However,the looting that is going on in the Protestant churches in India,which have immense properties in the country-one group is said to be the 4th largest land owner in the country (!),left in trust to them by the former English churches,is not a laughing matter.Lay members of these congregations in the dioceses where the looting is going on are fed up and are openly fighting against such looting.They no longer want to be sheep lled by a shepherd with a "crook",rather a "crook" posing as a shepherd! I mentioned Justice Saldhana earlier,who headed one such inquiry and found the accused bishop guilty of such crimes.The CBI has also entered the picture in several instances.

The EJs,some of them at least,have been also money raking rackets.Pentecostals,7th Day Adventists,Jehovah's Witnesses and latterly the Mormons,are outside the mainstream churches but have also mad steady growth in recent times.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 03 Aug 2011 14:51

Brieivik-ian philosophy can be found in a respectable and state-sanctioned form even in the US armed forces. US nuclear command is known to use selective quoting from christian scripture to motivate and train officers in charge of nuclear launch. Eg. see this leaked presentation/sermon by a US army chaplain.

Evokes verses from OT and NT to justify and motivate actions that'll lead to mass destruction of "enemy" civilians. All this under the so called christian "Just war" theory.

Note that the training doesen't shy away from human casualties or dehumanize the victims of a nuclear strike. Rather it strengthens the resolve of the Nuclear Officer by reminding him of his religious duty to obey orders and follow training.

Some gems of piskology:

- Can we exercise enough faith in our decision makers, political and military, to follow through with the orders that are given to us ?

IOW, shut up and follow your religious duty to press the trigger - the moral responsibility is anyway that of the POTUS.

- Are we morally safer in other career fields, leaving the key turning to someone else ?

IOW, if you won't do the job, someone else will. And you are party to the guilt of nuclear launch in another career, anyway.

The power-point "sermon" even has a gem of a quote from Werner von Braun, the German defector who led the missile program in US post WWII.

We felt that surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured

Of course, the sermon ignores any quotes to the contrary in christian scripture. Such kind of propaganda techniques are a double edged sword - they can be used to train Nuclear launch officers as well as future Breiviks.